Does this New Testament scripture show that homosexuality is OK in Christianity?

Anonymous1977

(NOT AFFILIATED WITH GROUP CALLED, "ANONYMOUS")
Nov 7, 2014
1,934
61
85
האי שלי
"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." Luke 17:34

Keeping this scripture in mind is it possible that Romans 1 could refer to something other than homosexuality and that homosexuality is actually OK in Christianity?
 
Romans 1:26-28 does not use the word homosexuality anywhere...obviously with Luke 17:34 in mind, it possibly refers to something else (other "affections"/"lusts.")
 
Good grief, homosexuality wasn't even a word then. Romans 1: 26-28 makes it perfectly clear two men or two women doing the nasty is a sin
 
"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." Luke 17:34

Keeping this scripture in mind is it possible that Romans 1 could refer to something other than homosexuality and that homosexuality is actually OK in Christianity?


Very telling that the christian god jesus pranced around with twelve other men in the wilderness
 
"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." Luke 17:34

Keeping this scripture in mind is it possible that Romans 1 could refer to something other than homosexuality and that homosexuality is actually OK in Christianity?


Very telling that the christian god jesus pranced around with twelve other men in the wilderness
And never touched a woman...
 
"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." Luke 17:34

Keeping this scripture in mind is it possible that Romans 1 could refer to something other than homosexuality and that homosexuality is actually OK in Christianity?


Very telling that the christian god jesus pranced around with twelve other men in the wilderness
And never touched a woman...


Very telling
 
Whatever the word for homosexuality was 2,000 years ago, Romans 1 does not use it...obviously with Luke 17:34 in mind, Romans 1 possibly refers to other "affections"/"lusts."
 
Good grief, homosexuality wasn't even a word then. Romans 1: 26-28 makes it perfectly clear two men or two women doing the nasty is a sin

Hate to tell you, but there are ZERO Bible verses that refer to females laying with females.

And...................here's something from a scholarly site called "Sacred Texts Archive" that has writings on almost every religion known....................

"
Did you know?

* Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
* The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
* Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
* The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
* The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
* The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
* The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
* 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
* No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
* Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
* Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
* Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals."

LGBT Texts
 
Good grief, homosexuality wasn't even a word then. Romans 1: 26-28 makes it perfectly clear two men or two women doing the nasty is a sin

Hate to tell you, but there are ZERO Bible verses that refer to females laying with females.

And...................here's something from a scholarly site called "Sacred Texts Archive" that has writings on almost every religion known....................

"
Did you know?

* Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
* The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
* Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
* The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
* The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
* The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
* The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
* 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
* No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
* Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
* Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
* Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals."

LGBT Texts

Romans 1 26-28 addresses females.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
 
Yanno...............I trust the word of scholars who have actually studied these things in depth and detail than I would yours SassyIrishLoser.

Unlike you, they've actually read the thing cover to cover, as well as checked with other writings referencing the sourced material. And, by the way, it just says unnatural passions, which were not specified. It could be talking about women with animals.

But..................keep defending your wrong views, they're funny to watch.
 
As everyone can see, with Luke 17:34 in mind, Romans 1 possibly refers to other "lusts"/"affections." Anyone making other New Testament scriptural claims can show their claims or...

(obviously the words "New" "Testament" mean something lol and obviously with Luke 17:34 kept in mind homosexuality is possibly OK in Christianity.)
 
Yanno...............I trust the word of scholars who have actually studied these things in depth and detail than I would yours SassyIrishLoser.

Unlike you, they've actually read the thing cover to cover, as well as checked with other writings referencing the sourced material. And, by the way, it just says unnatural passions, which were not specified. It could be talking about women with animals.

But..................keep defending your wrong views, they're funny to watch.

Gawd, I knew better than to engage you. I doubt you read it "cover to cover" and you wouldn't understand it if you did, it's obvious from your last two comments. I also suspect you're queer
 
Actually, I'm as straight as they come, been married once and have 3 boys.

I also spent 20 years in the U.S. Navy, and fwiw...............I never said that I myself had read the Bible, I said the scholars that I quoted did, meaning that although I might not know as much as them, they still know more than you do, and therefore I trust their word over yours.

And no..................I'm not a Christian, I'm a Taoist, but I've read quite a bit of Christianity, Judaism and Hindu beliefs and various parts of their texts.
 
Usually when people have no opinion towards another, they don't react as viciously as you do.

Ya gotta care a little bit if you're gonna hate someone.
 
And...................here's something from a scholarly site called "Sacred Texts Archive" that has writings on almost every religion known....................
what's the name of the gay person attempting to justify his life choices who wrote that page of misrepresentations?......
 
That particular site isn't written by just one person, it's written by MANY people who have spent the better part of their academic life studying various religions, including the Bible and Christianity.

Like I said..............I trust the words of someone who studies this stuff for a living rather than some anonymous poster on USMB.
 

Forum List

Back
Top